(The Rly Humble and Smart One)Let me take this opportunity to say:thnk u to all you Wingnut Althouse Hill-billie mouth-breathers. Were it not for you, I would have no one to employ the massive cudgel that IS my intellect against....

There are approximately 2,000 skimmer craft in the U.S., some large, some small. At present, more than two months after the leak from Deepwater Horizon began, just 400 of these are located in Gulf Coast waters.

Where are the other 1,600? They are tied up from New York to Alaska and points along the way by federal regulations that confine them to areas that might have an oil spill.The Dutch, Norwegians and other nations have massive oil-skimming ships that could deal with that 30-mile-long spill in short order. But because they only capture 96 percent of the oil they skim up and process, and put 4 percent back into the water, they are forbidden by federal EPA regulations to skim up oil slicks such as those headed for our shores.

Instead, BP is forced to fight the slicks with dispersants that leave 100 percent of the oil still in the water. But that’s OK with the EPA and the clowns in Washington.Recently, we were informed by the Press-Register that an oil slick in Mobile Bay could not be skimmed because the owners of the nearly 200 private boats working for BP out of Dog River and Fairhope had not passed an OSHA test for oil handling required by government regulation.

For two months, 13 oil-producing countries plus the United Nations have offered to send us their huge oil-skimming tankers and other vessels that can collect a thousand times the amount of oil that the shrimp boats or barges, let alone small outboard boats we are currently using, can collect.

But the Obama administration has dragged its feet on accepting these generous offers because of a labor-union law called the Jones Act that permits only U.S.-built ships crewed by U.S. seamen to operate in U.S. waters. Finally, on Tuesday, the State Department said it was “working out the particulars” of accepting the help.

Why does the Obama administration want an open border with Mexico, but makes no move toward opening the border with Canada?

And Canadians pulled over in the US for, say, traffic violations, aren't they routinely asked for their "papers"? That's just wrong.

Wisconsin provides free college tuition and low-interest mortgages for Mexicans here illegally, but not Canadians in the same circumstances. That is overt discrimination and should be stopped, immediately if not sooner.

We'd be better off with an open Canadian border. When was the last time you were accosted by a Canadian street gang? Or a Canadian drug gang?

This administration is so beholden to unions, that they let the oil continue to gush, and would not temporarily suspend the Jones Act (like Pres. Bush did during the Katrina recovery). Also, they would not temporarily suspend EPA rules to allow more skimmers in the Gulf (After Katrina, Pres. Bush temporarily suspended EPA rules on gasoline so that we could import it from Europe because refineries in Katrina's path were shut down).

I see Rasmussen has The Zero stabilizing at 45 Total Approve, down from the 48 he held for much of the year. Between the economy, immigration, and the Gulf (it's not his Katrina, it's his Iranian hostages), he should hit the low 40s this fall and be in the mid 30s next year.

And that bars another swoon in the market, etc.

Brian said...

This administration is so beholden to unions, that they let the oil continue to gush, and would not temporarily suspend the Jones Act (like Pres. Bush did during the Katrina recovery). Also, they would not temporarily suspend EPA rules to allow more skimmers in the Gulf (After Katrina, Pres. Bush temporarily suspended EPA rules on gasoline so that we could import it from Europe because refineries in Katrina's path were shut down).

This is hardly treating it like the emergency it is.

Anybody taking bets Dubya's response to Katrina is in the "Miss Me?" column by the end of the year?

Feds to take control of BP leak websiteBy: Samantha KingSpecial to The Examiner07/07/10 5:26 PM EDT

The Department of Homeland Security has announced the government will assume control of the joint website between BP and various organizations in charge of providing information about the BP oil spill and recovery.

The website has been jointly owned and updated since the spill occurred in March. Once it switches to dot-gov, instead of dot-com, the government will be able to police the content posted. BP is also funding the website and may be required to continue doing so after the site is moved.

DHS, which has no current connection to the site, said it wanted to create more transparency, according to AP reporter Harry R. Weber:

The Department of Homeland Security wants a one-stop shop for information that is completely overseen by the government as it settles into the long-haul of dealing with the response to the disaster. The U.S. Coast Guard falls under Homeland Security's authority.

BP and the federal government are part of a unified command that is working together to try to contain the oil gusher, but the government has been directing BP at every turn.

A DHS spokesman told The Associated Press on Sunday that the joint relationship won't change when the website is given a dot-gov address instead of a dot-com address.

But who can post information to the site would change. Details are still being worked out.

The spokesman, Sean Smith, said the government wants to be as transparent as possible and increase Americans' access to information.

The 44th president of the United States: “It’s unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes.”

Not so fast, Barry.

Jake Tapper looked at who held up the nomination of Dr. Donald “Death Panel” Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

That NAGIN didn't order an evac. that BLANCO wouldn't declare an emergency...that the Levees' broke, the levees maintained by Federal, State, and Local officials? That the levees broke under a Cat4 Hurricane, having been designed for a Cat3 Hurricane?

that the levees broke under a Cat4 Hurricane, having been designed for a Cat3 Hurricane?

Katrina made landfall as a Cat 3.

You could, perhaps, argue that the surge associated with Katrina was closer to that associated with a Cat 4 than a 3. After all, there's some lag between peak winds and peak surge and Katrina was weakening at landfall due to dry air entrainment.

While I'm not a real zealot when it comes to defending Bush's Katrina response, it seems a distinct possibility that landing within NOLA would have redirected resources better devoted to dealing with the situation on the ground.

E.M. Davis said... "..comes to defending Bush's Katrina response, it seems a distinct possibility that landing within NOLA would have redirected resources better devoted to dealing with the situation on the ground."

EM and a few other dimwits on here.

Nagin did order an evacuation 2 days before. yes he did.

Bush was given a briefing DVD 2 days after and then flew over it and - wait for it - appointed Karl Rove to head the effort post "Helluva Job Brownie"...

And the reason he didn't put boots on the ground because the friggin ground was underwater and a thousand people were dead...it was nice of him to show such concern.

Katrina and the Gulf Spill are two different things - completely different. Stop comparing any aspect of one to another.

That position always speaks to me more of raw emotion and personal hatred than it does of logic.

Why not a flyover in order to access complete damage of the entire gulf? You already know it was not just N.O. that was flooded, but rather the entire gulf coast was destroyed. Entire. gulf. coast. destroyed. Nothing can show that better than flying over the entire coast and seeing for oneself the complete scope of the damage. It's what I would expect of a president (Incidental to this point, it's what Obama did not do in the present case.)

And yet not landing and inserting himself into the picture is held against him. And since he can do absolutely nothing directly once inserted that's useful beyond comforting and expressing concern, his presence there becomes more a distraction than a help. Frankly, had he done that, with all it entails in that situation, I would have held that against him. That's the thing that doesn't make sense. Eventually he did do that but not immediately which was the right thing to do. But still you hold it as a point that speaks against him. It doesn't. But your holding it as a point does speak against you. I'm disinclined to value this opinion because it's emotion-based and purely partisan.

While I'm not a real zealot when it comes to defending Bush's Katrina response, it seems a distinct possibility that landing within NOLA would have redirected resources better devoted to dealing with the situation on the ground.

This.

My father was EOD assigned to Delta and on loan to the Secret Service during the Carter/Reagan election. This is almost exactly what he said at the time about Bush going to NOLA. Further, as a dispatcher years ago for a medical helicopter company, any time Der Schlickmeister came to town, the SS presence was thicker than thieves. A good portion of St Louis' city employees were retasked to this or that all in the name of security.

MadMan -- I would add that in both cases the populace expects the President to exercise Godlike powers and control the environment. Presidents who refuse to exercise their Godlike powers over weather and geology lose popularity.

Meanwhile, the media and the politicians spend their energy looking for causes and scapegoats. They spend almost no time considering the nature of risk.

Always the government response to disaster is a hodgepodge regulatory effort to prevent the same disaster from happening again. Never again!

Ruled out because it would cause more problems than it would solve (ya know, security and that stuff...). Of course, you Lefties demagogued it, being more interested in political points than really helping people.

During the floods along the Mississippi in the summer of '08, McCain did what you wanted and later said Dubya had been right to stay back. He found all the media and aides and security just got in the way of the people trying to do their job.

HDHouse said...

E.M. Davis said..."..comes to defending Bush's Katrina response, it seems a distinct possibility that landing within NOLA would have redirected resources better devoted to dealing with the situation on the ground."

EM and a few other dimwits on here.

Nagin did order an evacuation 2 days before. yes he did.

Yes, he did, but nobody got out because Chocolate City Mayor refused to use the school district buses (which weren't moved and subsequently ruined by the flood waters) because Nagin wanted motor coaches for everybody. I think his exact words about using school buses were something along the lines of, "conditions reminiscent of slavery". So everybody stayed where they were.

The people around here who throw words like 'dimwit' at everyone else with profligate frequency ought to look in the mirror more often.

Yes, he did, but nobody got out because Chocolate City Mayor refused to use the school district buses (which weren't moved and subsequently ruined by the flood waters) because Nagin wanted motor coaches for everybody. I think his exact words about using school buses were something along the lines of, "conditions reminiscent of slavery". So everybody stayed where they were.

Ray Nagin is a perfect example of both cognitive dissonance and what's wrong with race relations in this country, all bound up in one corrupt pol.

I agree it is an emotional response. But there can be no personal hatred when you don't know someone, so I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from. I do not know George Bush -- although I have said before that I think he'd be a good neighbor (impractical, though, since there'd be a security presence and I don't want that in my neighborhood. NIMBY!). I disagreed with some of his policies and loudly lamented his inability -- or disinclination -- to articulate clearly reasons for some of his policies.

A lot of a what a good leader does is image-based. Perception is important. I don't think Bush did a good job leading post-Katrina. Landing and asking what people needed, that would have been a great image. Remotely leading -- that is, from a plane looking down? Not going to work.

Let's qualify that a bit. The people that didn't get out appeared to be those who's lives normally revolved around dependency on government services. It's not a white/black thing at all because PLENTY of black people got out right along with everyone else. This is directly from friends and relatives in both National Guards positions and LA state troopers.

The people that congregated around the dome could have been plucked from any housing project in any major city with the same results. The fact that this was made worse by not using every single available resource (IE school buses) just makes matters all that more horrible.

MM, so now it semantics. It is rather clear you hate the man as a person. Yes, you don't know the man personally and yet the hatred seethes even this late. Admit it. It's personal.

‹anecdote alert›A friend, perfectly reasonable in every way and exceedingly kind besides, admitted to despising Bush on sight. Not real sight, mind you, but sight on TV. I told him I understood because I harbored the same feeling toward Ayatollah Khomeini, but I justified that feeling because the Ayatollah actually did resemble a demon. My friend said he didn't understand it himself, that his intense feeling came purely from his gut. ‹anecdote alert›

Former Vice-President Al Gore and his estranged wife, Tipper Gore, will not be attending Chelsea Clinton's upcoming wedding, a spokesperson for the family confirmed.

Well, duh. The invitation I received to Lil' Clinton's wedding specifically states that all the masseuses had been canceled due to lack of baby oil because of BP, and that musical arrangement was being done by both Dee Snider and the ghost of John Denver.

I dunno, Chip. I've never seen MM evince hatred toward Bush. Dubiousness aplenty, and perhaps a bit more cynicism than warranted (though it's hard to ever say cynicism is unwarranted in politics), but if he's hatin' on Bush, he's hiding it pretty well.

Former Vice-President Al Gore and his estranged wife, Tipper Gore, will not be attending Chelsea Clinton's upcoming wedding,

I applaud their decision not to attend. I think their presence would be a huge distraction.

On the subject of Weddings, I've been amused of late to read in the local paper the advice column -- I think it's Dear Amy -- about a mother who was ticked that her "wealthy" brother crossed the country with 7 family members to attend his niece's wedding and only gave the niece a present of $150. The nerve. Amy thought is was a nice present, and so do I. Is $150 from a wealthy relative thought of as stingy these days?

I don't know anything about this relationship so I don't know how far back it goes, but I've got to give some manprops to a guy that's willing to stick it out with the daughter of a former POTUS. That's GOT to be tough.

On the other hand, and no slam to Mazvinsky, is there any irony to the fact that one of the top DNC dude's only daughter is marrying an investment banker?

Third, since I'm obviously bored, will dear Chelsea be taking his last name, or does she transform into Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky? Or, does she go the middle road, drop her own middle name, and replace it with Clinton as a great deal of my high-school chick friends have done?

The Climategate investigations have been pretty thin gruel--mostly shallow procedural window dressing. Regardless, I never thought there was criminal misconduct. Stupid politics and sloppy science, yes. If any good comes of this, it will be a depoliticization of climate science (fat chance), greater transparency (slight chance), and more rigorous debate. There is much great work on both sides. I hope that the notion of science by consensus disappears.

"Yes, he did, but nobody got out because Chocolate City Mayor refused to use the school district buses The people around here who throw words like 'dimwit' at everyone else with profligate frequency ought to look in the mirror more often".

why edutcher you Chocolate City wit..dim as it is an is ever thus.

you might want to read this: http://llamaschool.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/_intro_whats_up.html but as is and is ever thus your mind, dim as it is, was made up a long time ago with a proligate application of rightwing finger pointing and typical Rovian lies.

glad i could be a help. you have a nice day little fella. now run along home. momma's callin.

As for Katrina, FEMA provided more help faster than had been done for any hurricane disaster before. By pre-Katrina standards it was indeed a "Heckuva job, Brownie!" And as for post-Katrina standards, please note that this level of aid will have to be paid for by the rest of us. Also note that it is probably beyond the abilities of our government to organize the delivery.

(I believe that still only about half of the $8 billion the Bush administration budgeted for re-construction has actually been spent.)

glad i could be a help. you have a nice day little fella. now run along home. momma's callin.

Why do continue to talk down to people, regardless of topic, when your own conduct hereabouts has been demonstrably, undeniably less than stellar. Less than stellar, in this context, to encompass dishonesty, failure to admit being wrong, and various other things one would normally attribute to adults having reasoned debate.

you might want to read this: http://llamaschool.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/_intro_whats_up.htmlbut as is and is ever thus your mind, dim as it is, was made up a long time ago with a proligate application of rightwing finger pointing and typical Rovian lies.

Okay FINE! No hatred. That's good. I'll settle on some other explanation for why his name is evoked for an inappropriate comparison with present-day events.

‹anecdote alert 2›Another friend, true and sensible and kind and gentle, also expressed a deep and unreasonable hatred for Bush. I asked him to explain his feelings. This individual is a product of tremendous privilege, but you would never know that by his blown-out sneakers or his typically sloven appearance. That's one thing I like about him most. Private academies, well-known prep schools and such. He remarked that Bush reminded him of a spoiled brat of the sort he was well familiar. He described in detail precisely feelings I held at the time toward John Kerry. The friend still has a Kerry/Edwards sign on his property to advertise his loyalty to political party. Most annoying, that ridiculous stubborn passive aggression. I asked him why was Kerry immune to his wrath even though he (Kerry) displays openly all those traits that he (friend) discovers so grievous in Bush. Without contesting the observation, he just shrugged as if it didn't matter.‹/anecdote alert 2›

Hey fella, you made the comparison and kept it alive between Bush/Katrina and Obama/Gulf-BP.

I'm sure it embarrasses you to death to have Bush in your closet as well it should. The rules of the game are, however, if you make an unfair and generally dull witted comparison/conclusion.. then it is up to us to point out the folly.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Russian gas giant Gazprom (GAZP.MM) was the world's most profitable company in 2009 despite ranking 50th in revenue, Fortune magazine said on Thursday with the publication of the Fortune Global 500.

That left a company that is 49 percent-owned by the Russian government as the world's most profitable by Fortune's measure, moving up from the No. 2 spot to break a five-year run by Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM - News) in the No. 1 position.

Is it too much to expect that you-know-who is not entertaining grand ideas of getting into the oil business?

May be the stark reality of the BP mess has you-know-who reconsidering any such ideas.

I think you people are not giving HDHouse credit where it is due, his political instinct is impeccable and obviously his votes and political point of view have put New York,the Empire state in the position that it's in today...2nd in the bankruptcy line behind California,smothered in debt,totally ruled by democrats from top to bottom and,and, OH WAIT!

I'm just waiting for some personal honesty from him (assuming it's really a him) in the form of the patents he claims he has and admitting when he's completely, undeniably, and in all other ways wrong.

Don't laugh. The idea is that the blue states will vote themselves a bailout from Washington. Even if it costs them the presidency. They won't face up to the cost of the pensions and benefits the unionized public employees have gotten out of their Democratic brethren in the state legislatures until they literally have picked the bones clean.

Hd is right not to equate Bush's reaction in Katrina clean-up to the Lawless One's reaction in the blown out BP well's clean-up. Bush was doing all that he could do, while the Obamanator is right now doing as little as possible until he first gets his wetdream Cap and Trade Rip-off tax as the price to save the Gulf. Like Blago said, "saving the Gulf is not something you should expect get from him for free".

"A lot of a what a good leader does is image-based. Perception is important. I don't think Bush did a good job leading post-Katrina. Landing and asking what people needed, that would have been a great image."

Anything that Bush did that was image-based was endlessly used against him. Saying that he probably should have done a photo-Op in New Orleans because it's a president's job to do stuff like that is ridiculous.

Oh, also... do please recall Palin went to look at hurricane damage and that's where we got Hoochi-Hoop-Gate.

It's silly to say that a Republican should do something for good PR when what it's actually going to be is really really bad PR simply on account of it being PR.

"The principal difficulty with conflict is that it defines us, usually in the wrong ways; that is, for ourselves and against others, rather than for ourselves and with others, against our common problems. It deprives us of relationship that can only develop through dialogue, problem solving, and collaborative negotiation. It traps us in ancient, profitless, destructive stories that cannot resolve, transform, or transcend what got us into conflict in the first place." K. Cloke, Ten Reasons We Get Stuck in Conflict

How about if they vote themselves getting the same amount of money they send to DC?

:yawn:

This is usually the prelude to the dishonest argument (usually accompanied by linking to that dishonest chart) about how much federal money states "get back", which fails to appropriately account for - among other things - the skew from spending on federal lands, military bases, military personnel salaries, medicare/medicaid recipient benefits, and social security payouts.

You weren't going to make that dishonest argument and link that dishonest chart, were you, MadisonMan?

MM: I'm sure the red states would agree to your proposition if they get back control of the resources held in now federally controlled lands within their borders (up to 84% federal control in Nevada's case), their waterways, and their adjoining continental shelf...

No real mystery why states with a large federal presence receive a large amount of federal money per capita...

yes i've got that going for me and a lot more. In contrast you don't have that going for you and a lot less.

I wonder what the latin phrase is for "less among the lesser" or "you got no game"...just wondering out loud...i mean you seem so out of your depth here....

frankly speaking, i can't imagine trying to be a big splash in a pool out of your depth. it must be insanely suffocating...like you are in some big jar of honey and you can't figure out to push to the surface but it's impossible anyway ..that with your skills.

"How about if they vote themselves getting the same amount of money they send to DC?"

Worthy sentiment, but as has been suggested, measuring this number would devolve into a hopeless argument. As is often the case, the simple way is the best (and often the only) way. Don't send the money to DC in the first place.

This, BTW, is also the answer to keeping government ethical. Stupid rules about who can't buy lunch for whom are a charade. You want to get the graft out of government? Reduce the power of government.

If the presence of humor, creativity, and reasoning are considered to be marks of evolved intelligence, then AllanS appears to be one of the more evolved fish splashing about this blog, but maybe he has a few years on HD, who still seems to prefer throwing small rocks.